Oh god, this is so statistically misleading. They give points for averages instead or ranges. That's something EVERYONE who's taken a even the smallest amount of statistics should know is a no no. The article says the difference is "statistically significant" but gives no indication of what alpha is. If alpha's .3, "statistically significant" doesn't really mean much. The study mentions large samples, but gives no indication as to the actual number. All the data is gathered retroactively, that is, gathered from old surveys and reports, which is never as good as data gathered during the study. We have no idea how good the statistics were from these reports/surveys were either.
The fact that they use points instead of ranges, and their refusal to give numbers when it comes to alpha and sample sizes makes this data very questionable.
To the people talking about liberal vs. conservative and poor vs. rich, general trends are as follows (taken from a Government and Politics course): Conservatism increases with money, but decreases with education. Education tends to have a more powerful effect than money. However, conservatism also increases with age.
